Monday, February 18, 2013

Exposed: Obama's Food Stamp MadnessGrassfire Update

The Obama administration has spent millions in taxpayer dollars to
aggressively promote the government’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP) -- including large cash payouts to local governments that
sign up the most people. In fact, one state received a $5 million bonus
for “the swift processing of applications.”

Since taking office in January 2009, Obama has
been adding 11,269 food-stamp recipients per day
an astounding 49.3 percent increase, prompting
Newt Gingrich to label him the “Food Stamp
President.”

Today, more than 47 million Americans are
receiving food stamps -- a number larger than the
entire population of Spain.

A federal audit of SNAP revealed that many of the
47 million already receiving food stamps don’t
actually qualify but receive them anyway under
a special program that disregards income and
asset requirements.

That means American taxpayers are paying what’s been called a
“multi-million-dollar tab to feed hundreds of thousands who can well
afford to feed themselves.”

The SNAP program was designed to be a temporary safety net
for individuals and families in need. Yet under Obama, it has become a
bloated, fraud-filled entitlement program funded by American taxpayers.

But that’s not even the worst of it.

Obama is even reaching across our borders, encouraging foreign nationals, migrant workers
and non-citizen immigrants to apply for SNAP benefits -- all on your dime!

With our economy in shambles, and our national debt approaching $17
trillion, taxpayers can ill-afford to fund another Obama handout that
last year topped out at $80.4 billion.

Sen. Rubio: President Obama's Immigration Bill Is 'Dead on Arrival'

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio called details of President Obama's leaked
immigration proposal "half-baked" on Saturday and predicted that the
measure would be "dead on arrival in Congress."

5inS

Rubio, who is spending this week in the Middle East, was responding to a
story published online Saturdayby USA Today which revealed that the
draft bill would allow illegal immigrants in the U.S. to apply for newly
created "Lawful Prospective Immigrant" visas. The bill would also
provide more security funding and require that businesses verify the
immigration status of new hires within four years, according to the
report.

“It’s a mistake for the White House to draft immigration legislation
without seeking input from Republican members of Congress," Rubio said
in a statement. "President Obama’s leaked immigration proposal is
disappointing to those of us working on a serious solution. The
president’s bill repeats the failures of past legislation.

"It fails to follow through on previously broken promises to secure our
borders, creates a special pathway that puts those who broke our
immigration laws at an advantage over those who chose to do things the
right way and come here legally, and does nothing to address guest
workers or future flow, which serious immigration experts agree is
critical to preventing future influxes of illegal immigrants," Rubio
explained.

President Obama has said he would send an immigration bill to Congress
if lawmakers do not move on the issue "in a timely fashion." White House
spokesman Clark Stevens said in a statement Saturday that a final
immigration bill has not been prepared but that progress is being made.

“Much like the president’s self-described ‘stop gap’ Deferred Action
measure last year, this legislation is half-baked and seriously
flawed," Rubio asserted. "It would actually make our immigration
problems worse, and would further undermine the American people’s
confidence in Washington’s ability to enforce our immigration laws and
reform our broken immigration system.

“If actually proposed, the President’s bill would be dead on arrival in
Congress, leaving us with unsecured borders and a broken legal
immigration system for years to come,” Rubio added.

Rubio is planning to visit Jordan and Israel this week, just days after
delivering the Republican response — in English and Spanish — to
President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address.

“America's friendship with Israel is a truly special one, and we must
continue to do all we can to support this beacon of democracy, religious
freedom and free enterprise in the heart of an unstable region,” Rubio blogged on Saturday.

The first-term senator is considered a rising star in the Republican
Party and his name is frequently mentioned as a possible presidential
candidate in 2016.

Rubio plans to meet with Israeli President Shimon Peres and Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his visit, which ends on Friday. He
also plans to meet with Palestinian Prime Minister Fayyad and Jordan’s
King Abdullah II.

"In Israel, I look forward to meeting with our embassy, military and
intelligence personnel as well, followed by visits with Israeli
political, defense, intelligence and business leaders," Rubio blogged.
"I am especially looking forward to meeting with President Shimon Peres
and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss various areas of mutual
interest, including the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. I also look
forward to meeting with Palestinian Prime Minister Fayyad."

Rubio says that the trip is part of his official duties as a member of
the Senate Intelligence and Foreign Relations Committees.

"As Iran continues its pursuit of a nuclear weapon, we must continue to
apply pressure through every possible means in order to prevent a
nuclear Iran," he said. "And I look forward to assessing the impact
American security assistance is having and discussing the importance of
the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt and how we can maintain it
during this time of great uncertainty and tumult in Egypt."

He praised America's relationship with Jordan and the country's role in fighting terrorism.

"In Jordan, I look forward to meeting with King Abdullah as well as
other members of the Jordanian government, which remains among our most
loyal allies in the region in trade, cultural exchanges and especially
in combatting terrorism," he said. "I am also interested in learning
more firsthand about the impact the Syrian civil war and how the
humanitarian crisis that has resulted is impacting Jordan and the
region."

In recent months, Rubio has taken the lead in steering the GOP’s efforts
toward a comprehensive immigration reform plan that would give more
than 12 million illegals currently in the United States legal status.

President Obama took 71 percent of the Hispanic vote in his recent
re-election bid against former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. And Rubio
is considered one of the GOP’s best hopes to increase the ranks of
Hispanic voters.

Rubio, who is visiting Israel for the second time and Jordan for the
first, is accompanied by his wife Jeanette. The senator stressed that he
is not using taxpayer funds to pay for his wif'e's expenses.

"As is customary in each country I visit on official business, I will
visit America's embassy to meet with the brave men and women stationed
there from our foreign service, military and intelligence services and
receive a country briefing from each," according to Rubio.

Obama’s Energy Plans: Tragedy Disguised as Triumph

The State of the Union Address (SOTUA) is now last week’s history.
Nearly every aspect of it has been fully dissected. For example, the National Taxpayers Union (NTU)
has done a line-by-line analysis of what they call the “most expensive
and widest ranging State of the Union Address yet.” They found that the
“quantifiable agenda items” in the President’s proposals “weighed in at
$83.4 billion.” The NTU called the efforts to combat climate change
the “most costly single agenda item”—citing a “version of the
‘cap-and-trade’ bill to which Obama referred in his speech was priced at
$282.4 billion total, or $56.5 billion per year.” The SOTUA
specifically calls for “a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate
change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a
few years ago.

I’ve listened to and watched the coverage. I’ve not heard anyone
address this one line from the speech—maybe it’s been covered and I just
missed it. If so, maybe you missed it, too.

“I'm also issuing a new goal for America: Let's cut in half the energy
wasted by our homes and businesses over the next 20 years.”

On the surface, it sounds innocent enough. No one wants
“waste”—especially not wasted energy. To fully understand the impact of
the simple statement, you have to read the supporting document released
coincidentally with the SOTUA: The President’s Plan for A Strong Middle
Class & A Strong America.

Within the plan, we find the following:
“doubling American energy productivity by 2030, starting with a new
Energy Efficiency Race to the Top for states: The President is laying
out a bold but achievable goal to slash energy waste through increased
efficiency.”

This whole energy efficiency idea came from the Energy 2030
report recently released by the Alliance Commission on National Energy
Efficiency Policy. The idea is that “energy productivity, or the amount
of economic output possible at a given level of energy supply, increases
as does efficiency, thereby allowing us to do more with less energy.”
Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Save Energy, which
spearheaded Energy 2030, said
the following in response to Obama’s inclusion of their ideas: “We very
much welcome that the administration embraced some of the
recommendations.”

Addressing the line in question, energy writer Elisa Wood said:
“It will take some serious work to achieve the goal. We must upgrade
energy infrastructure, adopt advanced technologies, educate and motivate
consumers, and institute a favorable regulatory climate, the commission
said. These steps will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, but the
potential exists to capture a trillion dollars in energy savings.”

Again, efficiency, on its own, is a laudable goal. The inclusion of
this comment in the SOTUA—which most agree the “laundry list” of dreams
will never happen—does represent Obama’s ideology of pushing less energy
usage. This is troubling because it is widely accepted that energy consumption and economic growth
go hand-in-hand. A successful country uses more energy. For example,
one of the reasons the US is using less gasoline is that so many people
are unemployed. They are not driving to and from work every day. They
are not taking long driving vacations. They are hunkered down. Heavy
manufacturing requires abundant, available, and affordable energy.
Energy is one of manufacturing’s biggest expenses.

But because of closed
factories, we are actually using less electricity in the industrial
sector than we did in 2000.

If the President truly wants to bring manufacturing back to America, as
he claims, instead of pushing for less energy use, he should be working
to make available as much low-cost energy as possible. But he is
pushing for more “clean energy”—which is also many times more expensive,
as Americans are beginning to see on their utility bills.

The problem with the whole “efficiency” argument can be found, in part,
in Wood’s comment: it will “cost hundreds of billions of dollars.”

News flash! We are in the worst economic crisis of most of our
lifetimes. We have a spending problem.

We do not have an energy
problem—especially not an electricity problem (and the Energy 2030
report focuses primarily on electricity). Within our borders, we have
enough coal, natural gas, and uranium (to fuel nuclear power plants) to
power a strong, growing American economy for 300 years. Instead of
promoting our abundant fuels, our president is ideologically bound to
promoting energy that is inefficient, ineffective and uneconomical—while
threatening our best competitive advantage in the global marketplace:
low-cost energy.

If what I am positing here is incorrect, the Keystone pipeline would be
approved (I do not think it will be—but I hope I am wrong); the EPA
would be directed to dial back on the threat of a fracking ban—allowing
the states to manage their own regulations, as they currently do;
liquefied natural gas export terminals would be approved; modern super criticalcoal-fueled
power plants would be built and older plants, that are burning so much
cleaner today than they were 40 years ago, would be allowed to live out
their productive lives instead of being shut down prematurely; federal
lands would be opened up for access to our oil and natural gas resources
that can be extracted with precision; the endangered species act
wouldn’t be used to block energy development, including copper mining;
and so-called “investments” in expensive green energy—that line the
pockets of the President’s friends—would be curtailed (after all, we do
already know how to make electricity from the wind and the sun, if we
ever really need it, and we can take the technology off the shelf and
implement it); and the economy would be booming—à la North Dakota.

Sadly, America is heading the other direction—pushing for reduced
energy usage. What would the United States look like in a reduced energy
environment? At best, check out Europe. At worst, just ask the
passengers of the cruise ship Triumph who had to sleep outdoors in a
makeshift tent city because there wasn’t electricity for air
conditioning, who ate raw food because there was no way to cook it, and
who had to use plastic bags as toilets because there was no way to
process the waste. A life without energy is no triumph—it is a tragedy.

Iran terror threat to Obama's Israel trip

Tehran looking to disrupt 'land-for-peace' talks

TEL
AVIV – There is immediate information that the Iranian-backed Islamic
Jihad terrorist organization may attempt to disrupt President Obama’s
visit here next month with attacks aimed at derailing
Israeli-Palestinian talks, according to informed Middle Eastern security
officials.

The officials stressed there is no known threat against Obama himself or any U.S. targets.

Rather, Islamic Jihad is planning for possible attacks within the
West Bank as well as inside major Israeli cities before and after
Obama’s trip, said the officials.

The officials fear Iran is trying to disrupt planned
Israeli-Palestinian dialogue aimed at creating a Palestinian
Authority-led state. Obama’s visit is ostensibly aimed, among other
things, at restarting these long stalled negotiations.

Since Hamas itself does not oppose the talks, Iran must reach out to
Islamic Jihad, largely funded by Tehran, to carry out any attacks, said
the officials.

Based on this information, PA security forces working with Israeli
security agencies have been leading a major campaign in recent days to
minimize Islamic Jihad cells in Jenin and surrounding villages, said the
officials.

THIS is why Obama visiting Israel

Obama is due in Israel next month in his first trip here as president.

The officials disclosed the Obama administration told both sides the
talks would be aimed at creating a Palestinian state in what is known as
the 1967 borders, meaning an Israeli retreat from some of the strategic
West Bank and possibly some eastern section of Jerusalem.

According to the informed officials, Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu agreed that once the talks begin there will be a silent,
undeclared freeze on all Jewish construction in the West Bank and
eastern Jerusalem with the exception of what are known as main blocs –
Maale Adumin, Ariel and Gush Etzion.

The officials said the White House was adamant that Israeli talks
with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas begin regardless of
the position of Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip.

Still, the U.S. is supporting Qatar, Egypt, Jordan and Turkey in
back-door efforts to broker a national-unity deal between Abbas and
Hamas during the same time period the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations
are set to take place, the officials said.

There is already close coordination between the White House and
likely incoming members of Netanyahu’s government coalition who are
known to be sympathetic to creating a Palestinian state, primarily
former opposition leader Tzipi Livni.

Further, WND was told Livni and former Minister Haim Ramon are
currently coordinating the renewal of talks with the PA’s chief
negotiator, Saeb Erekat.

Regarding Jerusalem, the informed Israeli and Palestinian officials
said the White House has been nonspecific other than to champion talks
based on what is known as the Clinton parameters.

The formula, pushed by Bill Clinton during the Camp David talks in
2000, called for Jewish areas of Jerusalem to remain Israeli while the
Palestinians get sovereignty over neighborhoods that are largely Arab.

WND previously reported Palestinians are building illegally in
Jewish-owned areas of Jerusalem, changing facts on the ground that
result in Arab majorities on certain neighborhoods.

The informed officials, meanwhile, said the White House expects the
issue of Jerusalem to be a key impediment in reaching a deal and is
therefore discussing the formation of an international committee to help
smooth the process.

Previous Israeli-Palestinian talks saw the U.S. naming an envoy meant
to broker between the two sides. According to the officials speaking to
WND, the White House has expressed interest in naming an envoy but has
doubts about whether such a point man will be successful.

The officials said the PA is pushing for a U.S. envoy while Netanyahu’s government is indifferent to the idea.

As a way to entice the PA back to the bargaining table, the White
House agreed to release some $200 million in aid that it has withheld
for months, said the officials. According to the officials, the deal was
brokered with the Palestinians by incoming Secretary of State John
Kerry.

We all know that Rand Paul wants to run
for president in 2016 as he's been all over the media seeking
attention, and he and his advisers have even admitted he is
interested. But the last thing America needs when it comes off the
Obama years is Rand Paul for he in NO way expounds true conservative
values as like his father, Ron Paul, Rand is a libertarian pretending
to be both a Republican and TEA Partier.

For starters, Rand Paul opposed the
Iraq War, stood by his father in saying that the September 11th
attacks were payback for America's foreign policies, does NOT believe
Iran to be the threat others know it to be, and has said for years
that we need to stop all foreign aid, including to our one true ally
in the Middle East...Israel.

In a January trip to Israel, solely taken to try and prove that he is NOT anti-Israel, Rand Paul, in a speech before an Israeli Think Tank, said that Israel could kick start a more piecemeal peace process by easing trade restrictions on Palestinians in Gaza. Yeah right, ease trade restrictions on those out to kill you, smart real NOT smart. And during the same speech, when pressed on his views on a divided Israel and Jerusalem, Rand Paul would NOT endorse the one-state solution favored by Israel's conservative leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Also, Rand Paul told his audience that while Israel is the number one recipient of US foreign aid, and even though she uses the money to strengthen her defenses against terror and regional enemies, he felt
that “reducing aid to Jerusalem would actually be good for Israel, because it would boost its local defense industry and would also enhance the country’s independence and sovereignty.”

Now that is a statement that makes NO sense whatsoever as taking monies away that are used for defense in NO way helps Israel retain her independence, in fact all it does is make it easier for Israel's enemies to wage war against her. And while Israel does receive about $3 billion in US military aid annually, 74% of it must be spent in the US, which actually puts money back into the US economy. And surprise, Israel is the only country that has to do this to such a degree.

This trip Rand Paul's hoped for goal was to make it clear to Israeli leaders that his opposition to foreign aid for Israel was not motivated by antipathy towards the Jewish state. Saying,“I would start (cutting aid) a little more quickly with those who are enemies of Israel, and enemies of the US”...'start a little more
quickly'...like that is supposed to placate Israel. Adding “with regards to Israel, it could be a gradual phenomenon” and that foreign aid “sometimes clouds the sovereignty of Israel” Rand Paul actually shown himself to be anything but pro-Israel.

But for Rand Paul and his minions all that is in the past as suddenly a light bulb moment must have gone off in his head that made him realize that he needs Jewish votes and Jewish money in his quest for the Republican nomination so he better get with the pro-Israel program and get with it fast. So what does he do...he flip-flops on his original stances on Israel and attempts to fit his libertarian foreign policy views into the Republican pro-Israel stance by saying, “I’m for an independent, strong Israel that is not a dependent state, not a client state.”

Again, NOT a wise thing to say as
Israel is dependent on no one for its survival. Israel and its
military do quite nicely on their own...going it alone in the '67 Yom
Kippur War, going it alone against the almost daily rocket attacks on its
country, going it alone in standing up to Iran, going it alone every
time Barack HUSSEIN Obama demands she return to her pre-67
borders...you get my drift.

So Rand Paul's light bulb moment is
proving to be anything but. Another case in point is a recent
interview on Breitbart.com where he was asked the hypothetical
question should and would the United States stand with Israel and
provide her foreign aid if the Jewish state were attacked by its
enemies and his answer was, and I quote, “If another country
launched an all out war with Israel that the United States should and
would assist them in some way.” In 'some way'...our ally is
attacked and according to Rand Paul we would only help them in 'some
way'...an answer only someone NOT truly supporting Israel would give
for even when pressed for specifics Rand Paul could and would give
none.

“Does the United States stand with Israel, in terms of giving
military foreign aid?” was another question asked of Rand Paul.
Refusing to answer the question directly his answer was, “Well
absolutely we stand with Israel, but what I think we should do is
announce to the world – and I think it is pretty well known —
that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United
States.

Oh how nice that sounds except the rest of the world does NOT
'pretty well know' where we stand in regards to Israel as our
president (gag), Barack HUSSEIN Obama, has armed Israel's enemies to
the hilt, sending a message that we do NOT stand completely stand
behind and with Israel.

And just last week when Rand Paul spoke
before The Heritage Foundation he said, "As many are quick to
note, the war is not with islam but with a radical element of
islam..." Rand Paul played right into the Obama rhetoric of
appeasing the enemy and betrayed Israel whose very survival as a
nation depends on defeating those who adhere to islam, because they have NO intention of
allowing the nation of Israel to survive let alone live in peace.

And while Rand Paul spoke of his wanted
American foreign policy to be one of containing the enemy, he failed
to realize that containment is the very foreign policy Barack HUSSEIN
Obama espouses. In fact, Rand Paul said America needs “a foreign
policy that finds a middle path...[and] that understands the
difference between vital and peripheral interests” the very words
Obama has used on many an occasion.

The thing is that Obama is already trying to
impose a form of containment on Israel by trying to persuade them not
to strike Iran at this point in time out of fear that an Israeli raid
might cause a ripple effect in the Middle East, and that such a
conflict between Israel and her Arab neighbors might lead to an oil
crisis that would further destabilize the Western economy (which by the way he and his misguided domestic and foreign policies have already destabilized).

So if Rand Paul can actually agree
with Obama on the issue of containment, what makes anyone think that
he does NOT really agree with Obama on Israel in general...as in
returning to her pre-'67 borders and dividing Jerusalem among other
things. So NO matter how hard he tries to, as they say, suck-up to
Israel and American Jews just to win the nomination, the truth is that
Rand Paul is NO friend to Israel as he would cut off aid to them in a
heartbeat if he had the chance to...all his pretty words
notwithstanding.

And with so many 'true' conservative Republican possible candidates out there, people who will stand by, stand with, and support Israel completely we can do better than Rand Paul...after all that person will have one hell of an Obama mess to clean up both in the US and overseas.

EMAIL FOLLOWERS

Follow My Posts by Email

The Patriot Factor

I am an American Patriot...part of the grassroots movement of bloggers spreading the truth the media will not. I am also co-host with Craig Andresen of RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS on RSP Radio at: https://streamingv2.shoutcast.com/right-side-patriots